Title : JOSE C. TECSON vs HON.
RAFAEL SALAS Executive Secretary
Citation : G.R. No. L-27524
July 31, 1970
Ponente : FERNANDO, J.:
Facts :
Jose Tecson, the Superintendent of Dredging, Bureau of Public Works was given a directive by
the Executive Secretary Rafael Salas to be detailed to the Office of the President, to assist in the San
Fernando Port Project, reporting directly to Commodore Santiago Nuval, the Presidential Assistant on
Ports and Harbors. Sometime thereafter, acting by presidential authority, the Executive Secretary,
ordered the nullification of Tecson's detail to the Office of the President.
Tecson filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition, arguing that the Salas detail order although
issued by Authority of the President, should be approved by the Budget Commissioner and the
Commissioner of Civil Service.
The respondent argued that the petitioner's contention would contravene to the generally
accepted principle which recognizes presidential 'power control' over the executive department.
Further, the temporary assignment of the petitioner to the said office is not a demotion in rank and
salary, neither is it to be considered as a disciplinary action against him and it does not involve removal
from his present position by transferring him to another position in a lower class. He will retain his
position as the Superintendent of Dredging, Bureau of Public Works.
The lower court dismissed the case thus the appeal. The Petitioner-Appellant is stressing that he
had a valid cause of action as there was a removal or at least a transfer of position without his consent
contrary to the constitutional provision. The dismissal was affirmed.
Issue :
Whether or not the assignment of Tecson on temporary detail to the office of Commodore
Nuval constitutes removal from office without cause.
Held :
The question raised is on the appraisal of the validity of the acts of the President or Congress is
one of power, it is not for the Court to inquire on the motives that may have prompted the exercise of a
presidential authority, though at the most, it can look into the question of whether there is a legal
justification for what was done. This is the manifestation of the concept of separation of power.
In the case of Villena v. Secretary of Interior, Justice Laurel expounded on the basic philosophy
of the presidential type of government, under this type the department organization in force by
paragraph 1, section 12, Article VII, of our Constitution, all executive and administrative organizations
are adjuncts of the Executive Department, the heads of the various executive departments are
assistants and agents of the Chief Executive, and, except in cases where the Chief Executive is required
by the Constitution or the law to act in person or the exigencies of the situation demand that he act
personally, the multifarious executive and administrative functions of the Chief Executive are performed
by and through the executive department and the acts of the secretaries of such departments,
performed and promulgated in the regular course of business, are, unless disapproved or reprobated by
the Chief Executive, presumptively the acts of the Chief Executive.
Even if we are to consider the Civil Service Act, the transfer did not result to reduction in rank or
salary. To require as a prerequisite to its validity the approval of subordinate to an action taken by their
superior, the President, who tinder the Constitution is the Executive, all prerogatives attaching to such
branch being vested in him solely. In that sense, for those discharging purely executive function in the
national government, he lie gives orders to all and takes orders from none.
The transfer did not amount to removal, while rightfully the Constitution guarantees the
security of a public official's term, as well as his right to be compensated, there can be no disputing the
truth of the assertion that the overriding concern is that the task of government be performed and
performed well. In the directive he remained Superintendent of Dredging in the Bureau of Public Works.
There was no demotion in rank. There was no diminution of salary.
WHEREFORE, the order of dismissal is hereby affirmed.
